(13-09-2013 06:21 PM)cjlr Wrote: Yes. But, the assumed independence and reproducibility of experiment and physical models is the very definition of the scientific method. That is my premise; knowable reality is the conclusion (by way of explanation).

Perhaps this is another difference in definitions. When I say a fact is a reflection of underlying reality, then that is just the supposition made to account for its apparent self-contained consistency. Which is to say: if we think we know something, it proceeds from something knowable; if something is not knowable, we do not and cannot know it. Treating something as knowable admits of study. The unknowable admits no such opportunity. What then is the point?

You can divide reality into a perceived reality and an objective one. I view science as allowing perceptions/experiences to speak for themselves, not as saying any thing about an objective reality. Science is part of philosophy, but a part that attempts to find what from thought is in accordance with experience; however not attempting proof, just eliminating falsified hypothesis as experience dictates.

Our perceptions are self-evidently known, any external thing possibly being perceived is unknowable. However, given that science is dealing with perception, that is self-evidently something that you can gain knowledge of, without regard to its relationship to something objectively factual.

Quote:Now; notice how we have had an interesting and enlightening philosophical discussion. Notice how a certain OP has literally nothing to do with it.

I have a lot of respect for IandI on this forum. I think he gets treated unfairly. IandI just isn't an authority figure, but says things that are controversial, which is something that should be respected, especially given the amount of good threads. To me, it would be a lot like how a bum off of the street would get treated walking, randomly, into a HS physics class talking about general relativity, maybe going off a little into physics that is more philosophical and not accepted as mainstream, versus hearing it from a university professor while attending a university. If you go in, not having authority, and say something that would contradict what is commonly accepted, you will receive backlash, and people will disregard what it is you are trying to say regardless of the merit. He is just trying to press ideas, that if crossing the line it is only by a little, but I think they challenge complacent thought nicely, especially in the right direction, even when not totally true.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell

(13-09-2013 06:21 PM)cjlr Wrote: Yes. But, the assumed independence and reproducibility of experiment and physical models is the very definition of the scientific method. That is my premise; knowable reality is the conclusion (by way of explanation).

Perhaps this is another difference in definitions. When I say a fact is a reflection of underlying reality, then that is just the supposition made to account for its apparent self-contained consistency. Which is to say: if we think we know something, it proceeds from something knowable; if something is not knowable, we do not and cannot know it. Treating something as knowable admits of study. The unknowable admits no such opportunity. What then is the point?

You can divide reality into a perceived reality and an objective one. I view science as allowing perceptions/experiences to speak for themselves, not as saying any thing about an objective reality. Science is part of philosophy, but a part that attempts to find what from thought is in accordance with experience; however not attempting proof, just eliminating falsified hypothesis as experience dictates.

Our perceptions are self-evidently known, any external thing possibly being perceived is unknowable. However, given that science is dealing with perception, that is self-evidently something that you can gain knowledge of, without regard to its relationship to something objectively factual.

Quote:Now; notice how we have had an interesting and enlightening philosophical discussion. Notice how a certain OP has literally nothing to do with it.

I have a lot of respect for IandI on this forum. I think he gets treated unfairly. IandI just isn't an authority figure, but says things that are controversial, which is something that should be respected, especially given the amount of good threads. To me, it would be a lot like how a bum off of the street would get treated walking, randomly, into a HS physics class talking about general relativity, maybe going off a little into physics that is more philosophical and not accepted as mainstream, versus hearing it from a university professor while attending a university. If you go in, not having authority, and say something that would contradict what is commonly accepted, you will receive backlash, and people will disregard what it is you are trying to say regardless of the merit. He is just trying to press ideas, that if crossing the line it is only by a little, but I think they challenge complacent thought nicely, especially in the right direction, even when not totally true.

I&I does not get respect here because he presents things disingenuously, he moves the goalposts, and he evades.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.

(14-09-2013 10:00 AM)TrulyX Wrote: You can divide reality into a perceived reality and an objective one. I view science as allowing perceptions/experiences to speak for themselves, not as saying any thing about an objective reality. Science is part of philosophy, but a part that attempts to find what from thought is in accordance with experience; however not attempting proof, just eliminating falsified hypothesis as experience dictates.

Our perceptions are self-evidently known, any external thing possibly being perceived is unknowable. However, given that science is dealing with perception, that is self-evidently something that you can gain knowledge of, without regard to its relationship to something objectively factual.

In other words: we don't know if we really know anything, but we (have no choice but to) act as though we do anyway.

So, like, what I've been saying this whole thread.

(14-09-2013 10:00 AM)TrulyX Wrote: I have a lot of respect for IandI on this forum.

To each his own.

(14-09-2013 10:00 AM)TrulyX Wrote: I think he gets treated unfairly. IandI just isn't an authority figure, but says things that are controversial, which is something that should be respected, especially given the amount of good threads. To me, it would be a lot like how a bum off of the street would get treated walking, randomly, into a HS physics class talking about general relativity, maybe going off a little into physics that is more philosophical and not accepted as mainstream, versus hearing it from a university professor while attending a university. If you go in, not having authority, and say something that would contradict what is commonly accepted, you will receive backlash, and people will disregard what it is you are trying to say regardless of the merit. He is just trying to press ideas, that if crossing the line it is only by a little, but I think they challenge complacent thought nicely, especially in the right direction, even when not totally true.

It's adorable the way he thinks he's being subversive, or even, dare I say it, Socratic. It's even more adorable that you see him that way.

(14-09-2013 12:27 PM)Chas Wrote: I&I does not get respect here because he presents things disingenuously, he moves the goalposts, and he evades.

You would like to think that.

He was treated unfairly from the beginning, simply because he was challenging the complacency, credulity, folly, lack of skepticism and lack of concern with regard to the approach certain people take toward thinking and information.

Well before you got mad at him and called him the "most dishonest poster on this forum".

Immediately him and Bucky Ball went at it in the Time thread.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell

(14-09-2013 12:27 PM)Chas Wrote: I&I does not get respect here because he presents things disingenuously, he moves the goalposts, and he evades.

You would like to think that.

He was treated unfairly from the beginning, simply because he was challenging the complacency, credulity, folly, lack of skepticism and lack of concern with regard to the approach certain people take toward thinking and information.

Well before you got mad at him and called him the "most dishonest poster on this forum".

Immediately him and Bucky Ball went at it in the Time thread.

You are wrong. He has a long history here; I suggest you investigate it.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.

(14-09-2013 04:20 PM)Chas Wrote: You are wrong. He has a long history here; I suggest you investigate it.

There is nothing to investigate.

If you are saying he used another account, previously, tell me what it is, but beyond it being interesting, that doesn't matter.

I read the posts/threads, he starts good threads. It is usually other people being bitches that causes problems. If people stopped pumping and drinking all of the damned Kool-Aid there wouldn't be any problems.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell

(14-09-2013 04:20 PM)Chas Wrote: You are wrong. He has a long history here; I suggest you investigate it.

There is nothing to investigate.

If you are saying he used another account, previously, tell me what it is, but beyond it being interesting, that doesn't matter.

I read the posts/threads, he starts good threads. It is usually other people being bitches that causes problems. If people stopped pumping and drinking all of the damned Kool-Aid there wouldn't be any problems.

Most of his threads are not 'good threads'. They are disingenuous and manipulative in their presentation. Many of them have been worded like "when did you stop beating your wife?" questions, or presented false dichotomies.

The subject matter may have been worthy of discussion, but he poisons the discussion from the start.

You are welcome to enjoy his threads. I find him shallow, childish, and prone to conspiracy thinking.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.

If you are saying he used another account, previously, tell me what it is, but beyond it being interesting, that doesn't matter.

I read the posts/threads, he starts good threads. It is usually other people being bitches that causes problems. If people stopped pumping and drinking all of the damned Kool-Aid there wouldn't be any problems.

Most of his threads are not 'good threads'. They are disingenuous and manipulative in their presentation. Many of them have been worded like "when did you stop beating your wife?" questions, or presented false dichotomies.

The subject matter may have been worthy of discussion, but he poisons the discussion from the start.

You are welcome to enjoy his threads. I find him shallow, childish, and prone to conspiracy thinking.

Chas, you make good posts and threads as well, however they are completely idiotic in your method of portraying them. Only a retarded mother fucker would present ideas in that way.

Cljr has stated and will state that Bush didn't like about WMD in Iraq. He claims that Bush innocently got wrong reports but wasn't trying to lie to the american people. Ask him to explain his views on that. Truly amazing that people still believe that shit.